It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
<font color=blue size=7><b>Roger Moore's car kick in FYEO was just as effective as anything Dalton ever did.</b></font>
It's fine but with Dalton it would have even been more effective. Just as the comedic/fantasy elements of the series worked stronger with Moore.
I disagree in this case. I do love the scene and it is very bad-ass........ for Roger. If he was only like that more often! But as for the debate, think about all the darker things Dalton did as Bond-- LTK especially:
* 'You earned it- you keep it' *Wham* Shark food!
* 'Don't you want to know why?' (then engulfs Sanchez in flames)
These just off the top of my head, I have a hard time picturing Moore doing. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to see Roger be a bit more 'killer' as Bond and he definitely had it in him-- but for the debate's sake, I don't think the 'car kick' was just as effective as anything Dalton did... it's just the closest he got, that's all
Roger moore showed more variation, and comedy is a very difficult medium and Moore excelled there as well.
The car kicking in FYEO was not unexpected but seemed to please some folks.
Thesis 80: Disagree. Leave the tough stuff to Bonds that know what they're doing.
I think that was one of the better examples of a "tougher Moore". It felt more appropriate for his Bond than the Andrea-slapping incident in GG which went against his reputation as a playboy.
I think I agree with thesis actually. Moore acts it well and doesn't even need to raise his voice.
That's the problem I have. There is no such thing as the tougher Moore. He was natural at his souffle light Bond, anytime he begins to step out of his comfort zone, I start to cringe. And don't get me started on his fights, Moore moved worse in his fights than the Tin Man from The Wizard Of Oz.
I'll give you the fights lol
Seriously, in Eyes it worked because Loque was blantantly "bad" so Moore didn't look like as much of a bastard as he did in GG.
Still, a good moment in FYEO.
Not sure I understand the initial question though, is it someting Dalton would not do, he did worse than that you'll remember. Most vile thing (if that is the operative word) Moore did for me was the killing of Stromberg at the end of The Spy Who Loved Me. I've thought about it though, and gone with an agreement of thesis. I.e. it was effective, and what Dalton could do, hope that's right :|
<font color=blue size=7><b>John Glen was a better Bond editor than he was a Bond director.</b></font>
I'll agree. The quality of Glen's direction often depended on the quality of script Maibaum and Wilson provided him to work with.
Question for DD: for a future thesis, are you going to give us a chance to debate if Peter Hunt was a better Bond editor than he was a Bond director?
Ask, and thou shalt receive, sir. ;-)
Don't vergot the directer is also partly editor. (Roger Spottiswoode and Michael Apted be more assistent editor for there movies then Lee Tamohori.)
OHMSS is directed by Peter R Hunt, edit by John Glen. My opnion be that OHMSS be also the source for TSWLM, FYEO and Octopussy.
I think Peter be a better directer. Whyle Dr No have his flash i like the movie. FRWL is his best, The train scene is slow like Dr No but never be a big problem because others be better too. On some way this also count of OHMSS. GF my biggest problem and iam curious what Hunt have done with Thunderball (Water scene's) who is not done by him. Partly it mabey be even based on FRWL.
Interesting, @DC007. Weren't you a fan of AVTAK though? (I could be mistaken, mind.) In that case, am I correct in assuming that you prefer to watch the film as a collection of great bits, rather than as a whole consisting of good bits glued together by great directing? :)
IMO the good bits in the Glen films outweighs the bad directing... but yes it does hurt the film, since when there's not much happening, the movies are just tedious. I always await the next good bit, as you say, while in other films the whole flick just flows really great.
Though I'm a big fan of Glen myself, I understand and in fact agree with you more or less. MR, for example, often criticized of its incredulous plot or its scifi-ish 3rd act, has IMO a very strong continuous quality to offer. I mean, does it ever get boring or tedious? Not in my book. Yet even one of my beloved films, FYEO, I must admit, requires at times that I pay close attention to the wonderful settings or Moore's very enjoyable acting, for if I don't, the story doesn't always boost the rhythm of the film. Luckily I'm a very patient (sometimes too patient) viewer who doesn't mind absorbing a scene's mood when the story seems to have gone to bed for a few minutes. But like I said, MR for example never necessitates this manoeuvre.
That said, Glen's last two films rate very high on my Bond film list. And perhaps not surprisingly I think that the objections you postulated, and which I mostly agreed with as demonstrated above, don't quite count for those. There's not a single moment in both films that in the slightest feel dull to me and Glen's directing actually serves as the cherry on a fine piece of pie. What say you? :-)